Léontine Films (1910-1912) // Cinema’s First Nasty Women Review Part 1

Cinema’s First Nasty Women is a triumphant Blu-ray box set that collects a large sum of old comedies – comedies that, you guessed, feature female comedians prominently. The first of many collected works is the Léontine series. The fifteen featured films detail a raucous girl that delights in chaos and destruction. This premise is of course open to including the funniest thing you’ve ever seen or something very middle of the road. Many popular silent comedies have a similar premise, notably Charlie Chaplin’s Keystone work. The contrast of using a young girl instead of what’s supposed to be a middle aged man does give more potential to this series. Many of these shorts are half-reelers. What you’d hope is that they pack an extremely mean punch before quickly concluding, using the limited timeframe to be concise. Unfortunately, ideas either don’t have enough time to develop or there’s too little of an idea, with that five or so minutes being far too inessential.

There is a common formula. “Léontine goes in public and is destructive, affected people run after her, repeat until a whole bunch of people are after her.” Her tricks are not very different or interesting from each other, so it can be tedious to watch all of these. The first available short, Léontine deviant trottin aka Léontine Becomes an Errand Girl (1910), is representative of this. It’s one of the more uneventful, though it is incomplete. There are strangely many needless intertitles. Who thought that and the moral at the end were a good idea? Fortunately, neither stick around. Another trope is the townsfolk being way too animated or extremely idiotic, such as in Les malices de Léontine aka Léontine’s Pranks (1912).

There are sometimes little bits that suggest the brilliance these could’ve been. Many of these films have beautiful backgrounds, with lived-in buildings and rich lighting. Les Ficelles de Léontine aka Léontine Pulls the Strings (1910) is a good example, with the episode otherwise a standard runaround. Léontine en apprentissage aka Léontine’s Apprenticeship (1910) features our lead fighting some boys. That is a great moment to give her some personality. Despite that, this short is lacking in moments you could even call jokes. Léontine goes into a room and destroys something in it. Fortunately, when black paint is dumped on her, there aren’t any racial gags that would date the film.

Léontine s’envole aka Léontine Gets Carried Away (1911) has a great twist, though the development of the story and the gags themselves are among the most plain. The ending is pretty dull. The pun in the title is very smirkable. The prime example of this issue is in La pile électrique de Léontine aka Léontine’s Battery (1910), which has a box that can electrocute people, topped off with a good special effect, and an even better ending. Regardless, the short is very formulaic, mostly being one joke and more damningly the lead does very little. You could imagine basically anyone serving her role here.

Speaking of which, what of Léontine’s personality? Sadly, she often just laughs at the destruction she causes or sets up said destruction. She could have things like a unique walk or fall (which the aforementioned Chaplin had) or any personality beyond a generative force that destroys people’s things and gives them something to run at. To illustrate my point, during Ventilateur breveté aka The New Air Fan (1911), I thought I might’ve played the wrong short due to not seeing Léontine. She’s one of the few bicyclists. She doesn’t even do anything chaotic, as it’s not suggested she was purposely trying to blow people away with the fan. Save for a shot of her at the end, you could show this to someone that’s seen some of this series and they wouldn’t think this was a Léontine film due to her being filmed from a distance for most of it. She doesn’t act wild, just simply rides her bike. This is also one of the better shorts, with the gags having some escalation. It is relatively predictable, but is still amusing due to an absurd premise and a little escalation, especially with that great theremin score.

Probably the weakest of these is Rosalie et Léontine vont au théâtre aka Rosalie and Léontine Go to the Theater (1911). Having a friend that’s just as destructive as the leading lady is a great idea, with them able to be more of a force as a duo, yet they are confined to a theater where they are reasonably static and get up to what you’d expect, they’re loud and make messes. Rosalie is so undistinguished, with jokes not even playing off of the duo element or her as an individual, making you wonder why she’s here. As is typical, there’s no real development to the humor.

In Un ravalement précipité aka A Hasty Renovation (1911), Léontine is pretty ordered and not destructive, as if someone forgot who this character was. She and the other cast members do very little, and thus don’t get laughs. There’s once again this strange issue of there not even really being jokes often. Too much cleaning. It’s a lot more fun to see a fearless Léontine, so this film is a least favorite. It’s amusing to think this was set right after she had an episode of destroying everything. It’s not fun to see Léontine worried about the consequences of her actions.

Despite these negatives, the series does roughly improve. It seems possible they understood some of these criticisms and sought to fix them. In Léontine enfant terrible aka Léontine, the Troublemaker (1911), Léontine is more charming in how much effort she puts into being destructive. Her facial expressions paint her as someone who seems determined. The gags are a little more inventive than usually, with it not always being obvious what she’ll do. Still, the series could be doing more, trying to be as outrageous as possible, but this is still decent.

Le bateau de Léontine aka Léontine’s Boat (1911) is glorious chaos. This one utilizes a simple premise effectively. Gags escalate, with things getting crazier and crazier. You don’t expect it to go as far as it does. Léontine does very little, but this short demands less of her than usual as the premise does have her “careless destructor” stamp in its DNA and it’s such a good premise. All topped with the name of the short being so hilariously understated. This is just about a “one joke” film, but it’s quite short and that joke has slight variations and extremely strong visuals. It’s fun to just imagine it being filmed and how much destruction had to be done. Léontine’s Boat is very outrageous.

Amour et musique aka Love and Music (1911) finally gives Léontine a really funny introduction to the story, with her adopting a musical instrument. The score is great, perfectly portraying her silliness. Despite this, this is one of the less eventful outings. Tragically, Léontine ultimately softens. In Léontine garde la maison aka Léontine Keeps House (1912), Léontine seems to have the best of intentions, but is just careless. That being said, this is a simple premise, which married to a few twists makes it one of the best shorts here, though due to the character shift, it’s a lot less lovable.

The listed last short for this character in the box set is La peur des ombres aka Fear of Shadows (1911). The lived-in backgrounds are just beautiful to look at, as are the darkly lit scenes, making a sharp setting for the bumbling cops. They at one point physically pull on terrified women. In a realistic scenario, they’d just tell them whatever they’re trying to show them, but because this is silent a visual way to convey that is needed. The twist is very good. Despite the fact that the main character of this series barely appears, the more ambitious filming style makes this the best short here. It would be funny if the advertising for this episode made no mention of Léontine, so her appearance would be more of a surprise.

Léontine en vacances aka Léontine on Vacation (1910) has a gloriously chaotic score (for a middling installment). So many of the scores for these films really amplify the experience. I would imagine that the people doing them have a good understanding of the energy the lead resonates, due to having a slightly unsettling feel. To nitpick, these films are not presented on the set in order, which seems like it’d be an obvious thing to do.

SPOILERS

It’s not fun to see Léontine lose, as she does in installments like Léontine on Vacation. She’s supposed to be a challenge to society. If society wins, then that’s too boring. You can see people get in trouble for breaking the rules everywhere.

There are some interesting themes. In Léontine Pulls the Strings, the townspeople, thinking a scarecrow is Léontine, beat it. It’s a little more understandable how Léontine would become like how she is if this is the environment she was brought up in. Léontine on Vacation suggests that Léontine’s family doesn’t know she’s a troublemaker, as she’s allowed to roam around. Maybe they don’t care? At least some of her family do expressly mind her behavior, though no one in this series seems to know who she is, as if she wouldn’t have a reputation. In Léontine’s Pranks, a woman’s skirt falls off and instead of putting it on, she chases after Léontine. This goes to show how crazed these characters often are to get Léontine, at the cost of disobeying social order. As an aside, I wonder if it wasn’t supposed to fall off and when it did, the actress improvised?

Favorite gags include in Pulls the Strings, where Léontine tricks a man before beating him with an object. The ending of Léontine’s Battery, where she evades capture by electrocuting authority figures. The New Air Fan starts with a good visual set piece, then there’s things like some people wanting to cool off, only for the fans to come and blow them away. At the end, a car with those fans comes out and blows the bicyclists away. In Léontine Keeps House, none of the townspeople check if they’re giving our hero the right kid and dog, further showcasing the lack of any sane minds. There’s something extremely charming about the ending, where Léontine is surrounded by dogs and babies. Léontine randomly falling in love in Love and Music, especially with a funny man, is amusingly absurd. Hopefully this isn’t supposed to be a “taming”. It works better as just being the most unexpected thing to happen, not a straight usage of this tired trope.

OVERVIEW

While the character of Léontine is praised for being a challenge to authority, she does often pick on random people who aren’t doing anything wrong, just living their lives. This isn’t a critique, but this can go to show how characters like this can be exaggerated to be as thought out and interesting as possible, when it was really more about the comedy. It’s great historical films like these are being preserved. Despite my many criticisms, these vignettes should be available for those interested to see, at least as proof that comedy wasn’t as male-dominated as some might think. The shorts I like are Léontine, the Troublemaker; Léontine’s Boat; and Fear of Shadows. None of these three, or the others, are anything essential or brilliant, but those three have the greatest density of quality laughs.

Blood and Roses (1960) Review

A frame of Marcella from the film

We get a very slow, eye-catching, surreal film in Blood and Roses. Many may watch it and think it’s eventless and boring, but that just adds to the strange nature of the film. You’re on the edge of your seat waiting for what will happen next. The vibrant colors and cinematography by Claude Renoir give an appealing and easy to engage movie. The colors reflect the colorful and strange situation. The protagonist is Marcella, played by Annette Vadim, a beautiful woman that’s a step out of line with everyone. She is very quiet and contemplative throughout the film. Her actress, Annette Stroyberg, goes through subtle changes which can be hard to detect between any two scenes, but they’re still there. Once finishing the film, if one goes back to the beginning, the character is different.

Other actors in the film are good. Even the two child actors effectively give their lines and portray their characters well as imaginative children. The male lead of the film is Mel Ferrer as Leopoldo De Karnstein. He’s a friend of Marcella and he’s going to marry her friend, Georgia. He’s an odd character. He sometimes is very kind, but other times is agitated. Near the beginning, he asks Marcella to go to a party he’s throwing and when she says she doesn’t want to, he gets mad and tells her to go with an angry voice. There’s an implication that he might do something bad if she doesn’t go. No character or plot point brings up his negatives. People that mention him mention his kindness. What’s the point to these moments? Elsa Martinelli is Georgia. She is mainly just the object of desire for characters as she’s very innocent and beautiful. This admittedly simplistic character is still portrayed quite well by Martinelli.

The pacing is very slow. Admittedly, not a lot happens, but there is a method to it. The slow pacing is building this weird, dreamlike film. It is portraying the slow madness of the whole thing. Slow scenes show how characters are thinking and what they’re doing, which pays off around the end when the climax hits. The point of the film is to see how our characters act and why.

SPOILERS

In the beginning, some characters are discussing vampires, Marcella is present. We get some foreshadowing when a character assumes that a vampire would be male. It’s relayed that about two-hundred years ago, all the vampires were killed by the people they were stalking. One may have escaped. A little bit later, guess what Marcella finds in a secret room of a castle? The vampire is female and Marcella looks like her. Some have said that Marcella is killed here and replaced by the vampire, Carmilla, but that wasn’t made very clear. Marcella acts increasingly agitated in the film. If Carmilla immediately replaced her, you’d think she’d act completely differently as we’re now dealing with a different person, but the slow transition makes one think Marcella is slowly being turned.

Vadim does a great job of showing her turns. Marcella’s progressively losing herself. She’s drawn to this beautiful white dress Carmilla wore and walks around in it. As if the dress represents her loss of control and humanity. Blood and Roses has some Lesbian subtext, just like in Dracula’s Daughter. While Carmilla was said to be with a man, perhaps Marcella overpowers this a bit or Carmilla didn’t like the man. There’s a scene of her chasing a girl, brilliantly executed with no cuts and no music, perhaps to suggest she’s looking for women, even though she’s not supposed to. However, one character, who has embellished stories of his to children, says that female vampires only go for female victims. While perhaps he was knowingly lying, why show that scene anyways? Why do female vampires go for women? Are they all Lesbians? What if this film is using female vampires as a metaphor for Lesbians? “Lesbians only go for female victims.” There could be an insinuation that Lesbians are vicious and predatory or they’re perceived that way.

At one point in the film, Marcella sees she’s bleeding when she looks in a mirror, but she’s not bleeding when she looks down at herself. She’s panicked by this. If vampires are a metaphor for Homosexuals, than the vampiristic blood would represent the gay desires she wants to suppress. She’s also bleeding from where her heart is, adding to this. Later on, Leopoldo kisses Marcella, while she doesn’t reject it, she doesn’t initiate it or show signs of being thrilled by it. Here, a man is appealing to her and her facial expression suggests, “Whatever.” Leopoldo is also cheating on his fiancée here, suggesting this is something you’re not supposed to like as it’s betrayal. This scene repeats itself when Georgia is disturbed by how strangely Marcella is acting. Ultimately, Marcella goes in and kisses Georgia. The vampire is going for the woman too innocent and kind, who is the object of desire, the prize. Georgia is “betraying” Leopoldo by not stopping this as soon as it happens, but this is also another representation of needing to let yourself free. Leopoldo does it to Marcella who does it to Georgia. I don’t care if this is wrong, I just got to! The two are interrupted before we see what Marcella would do next, but I’m driven crazy thinking about what Marcella’s objective was? Would she bite Georgia? Would she try to have sex with her? What?!

Georgia dreams later, among other things, the dream features Georgia and Marcella dancing. This may represent Georgia’s desires for Marcella as well. The scene of them dancing is beautiful. The dream sequence is especially striking as when it starts, the color film turns to black and white, but we see the color red, signifying blood and the heart. Georgia wakes up convinced Marcella will die. Not long afterwards, she falls on a stake wearing the dress and accidentally impales her heart. This film leaves you wondering how much of it is a dream or imagined, with some saying it all is. Some say that Marcella simply thinks she’s a vampire, but is not in actuality. Some say it’s all straightforward. Any possibility seems possible and like it could work in the story. If it’s a dream, it’s probably the dream of Georgia or Marcella, which makes the film even gayer as they’re dreaming about being together. If it’s straightforward, we’re still seeing this tortured soul who doesn’t know what to do. How does she act with Georgia or Leopoldo?

If it’s a delusion of Marcella, it leads to quandering. “What’s the fuel for it all?” In the beginning, Marcella looks in the direction of Leopoldo and Georgia and seems infatuated. There’s a bit of ambiguity as to who she’s looking at. Characters often say in the film that Marcella is in love with Leopoldo, but if the film is Marcella’s embellishing mind, then the story is her scream that this is not the case, that it’s actually Georgia she loves. When Leopoldo kisses Marcella, if she loved him, she could’ve just kept kissing him and possibly do more. She never initiates something with him. It appears metaphoric that everyone perceives her as loving Leopoldo, when the truth is that she loves the person right by him. The vampire looking like Marcella could suggest that one’s feelings and instincts never die. They’ll hide away, but they’re always there and they might come out at times.

OVERVIEW

Blood and Roses is a classy affair. It paints in blurry lines and gives you a lot to think about while still delivering an engaging and easy to follow story with drama, suspense, and little music, but the music present is a very pretty Harp score.

Georges Méliès’ The Four Troublesome Heads (1898) Review

Georges Méliès

One of my favorite filmmakers has got to be the epically mustached Georges Méliès. It’s kind of weird to call him a filmmaker, though. He began his career as a stage magician, but decided to jump from stage to screen in the infancy of film as a whole. While his films were initially very straightforward and similar to others; film a crowd of people, film someone doing something mundane, film something a little interesting, he ended up being a pioneer in the medium. He popularized or was the first to use cutting, special effects, storyboards, time-lapses, color, narratives, and more. He’s best known for the 1902 classic, A Trip to the Moon. You’ve probably seen an image of a face for the moon with a rocket in its eye. That’s from that movie. While Trip is certainly influential, it’s not my favorite of Méliès’ films. My favorite is The Four Troublesome Heads. This one minute short has some significance to me as it may have been the first silent film I ever watched. My memory isn’t so clear I can know for sure, but I don’t recall any other silent films crossing my path before this one.

Heads is a very simple film. A man pulls off his head, sets it on a table, walks around without one, then grows another one, pulls it off, repeats, and eventually there’s four. The short works so well as it exudes creativity and character. The man, played by Méliès, is clearly having so much fun. While he is overacting, that just sucks you into the film. His theatricality gets you into what’s going on, makes you more interested. You’re left disappointed and a tad frustrated when it ends. It should just go on forever! Every moment of the film has character. When Méliès tries to prove the head he pulled off isn’t attached to a hidden body, he accidentally bumps into a table, making the trick seem more real as that probably wasn’t planned. The four heads sing together at a point. There’s lots of laughs to be had.

To be critical, with modern technology, such as the ability to watch films in High-Definition, you can see the seams of the production. Méliès is in front of a black background the whole time and when he takes his head off, you can see that the film was altered to have black over the part of his body supposed to be covered. When his heads are on a table, they’re not lined up perfectly with the table, as they were imposed over it.

OVERVIEW

This film doesn’t relish in its mistakes. It doesn’t emphasize them. It emphasizes making you laugh and having a good time. One can get loosened up and comfortable watching some comedy that may seem silly, but is endlessly enjoyable. Méliès is essentially putting on a show. He plays it like he’s doing magic on a stage. You’re the audience and he’s determined to give you your money’s worth and more importantly, your time’s worth. With only one minute of length, how can you go wrong?

A 90’s Classic – The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (1896) Review

An early Lumière advertisement.

I’m a bit eager to discuss one of the many films by the Lumière brothers, Auguste and Louis Lumière. Both are considered the fathers of cinema (A win for Gay parenting). They invented and patented the cinematograph, which is essentially a film camera and projector. It’s often considered an improvement to Thomas Edison’s kinetoscope which only could screen to one viewer at a time. They’re considered by many to be the best filmmakers in this early era where there weren’t any cuts or special effects.

When thinking of a silent, black and white film I could review, I thought I should start from the start. I gravitated towards the Lumière brothers’ best regarded film that I also think is their best, The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat. Anyone who watches it may think, “What’s so special about this fifty-second viewing of nothing? This guy is just biased towards the 1800’s pictures!” Hopefully this review can give some insight on my perspective. I considered reviewing the literal first film to be screened publicly, aka the film that marked the start of cinema, Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory, but I don’t like that one very much. It’s not terrible, but this film in at least some regards is a refinement.

Technically this has spoilers. Even though I can describe what’s happening, that’s not what I get from the film. It works based on what you can’t get out of a review, only from watching it. At the start, people are standing around, waiting for the train. We see people who work at the station, as well as future passengers. This is such a good way of painting this world we’re in. We can see what’s happening and when the train comes, it is a very sharp visual answer to what is going on. Even though we can see the train tracks from Frame 1, that’s on the left side of the frame, while the people, who are moving around, are on the right. There’s something more to be gained from a large, visual smack of the Train arriving, than in a film like Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory, where the camera is capturing a flat shot, the people in that film walk off to the left, which gives that film a lack of density. In a move which intentionally or not follows filmmaking rules, seeing as we’re focused on the right of the frame, the train also first appears on the right.

A bit of framing that models 3-D movies, the train progressively moves towards the camera (and then beyond it). Perhaps it’s obvious, but this isn’t 3-D, and doesn’t have the unnatural effect that comes from 3-D movies. Those films typically have things jumping at the camera and little novelties which often subtract from the story more than it adds. The Train arriving mirrors the progression of the story. We see more and more look to the train. We see it come to life and play a larger role in the film later on. The best way of tying off what’s been shown is what happens when the train stops. People start moving off and on the train, this is the film’s climax. We see people doing their business. The film shows that it’s a busy area, but everything can be seen clearly. Sadly, we don’t see the train depart, as it would’ve given some finality, but it doesn’t detract too heavily. In a sense, the train is a character, and the character never gets an end.

Films that don’t have stories do suffer a bit. Stories help to emphasize what’s happening and give more weight to it. This film’s lack of depth can give it the feeling that it wasted your time and if one is looking to be thrilled and awed, then this might not satisfy. Even though it’s great to see people’s faces, showing what people are thinking, it should’ve shown more, with more variety in facial expressions. It would also have been nice to see more people who worked at the station, to then again expand on what we’re seeing.

The best films of this time used attractive lighting and cinematography to show this “bite-sized world”. In such a small amount of time, we are told so much about what’s going on. A less skilled director might not show people’s faces or make cuts to things that are irrelevant to the narrative. This film is efficient and classy. Though it might be a little too efficient at points, it is effective regardless. This is perhaps the best picture of this time and genre, where the camera’s turned on and life is seen.